What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[The Cadet]

Yes, it WAS.

I'm repossessing your logic card. You can have it back when you've earned it.

 

[juvenissun]

THat was the exact opposite of what he said. You asked "what doesn't need more intelligence? " Jelly fish is an answer to your question. Indeed, in some models, they are ready to become the dominant phylum on the planet. With no intelligence at all. Bacteria, too.

I am good. But I WANT to be more intelligent.
Why shouldn't a jellyfish?

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, in an ideal world, science would be based solely on facts.
But it's a human endeavour, mistakes are made, in most fields of science.
Especially when you have an axe to grind or an assumption to prove.

It's a little hard though, to be sure certain parts found actually belong to the same organism, when the individual bones were scattered and incomplete (fragmentation).
So in case of Lucy, the actual fossils are not the hoax, although there are doubts the bones are from the same organism, but the artist's rendition, with human feet, is nothing more than an educated guess.
This is how it is a hoax, because it (Lucy as a reconstructed hominid) is presented as factual and scientific, purported to be a missing link between man and ape,within the paradigm of an ambiguous 19th century conjecture (Darwinism), but it is just a suggestion, an interpretation of the collection of strewn bones gathered.
Australopithecines are a group of extinct apes closely related to modern chimpanzees and orangutans.
Further studies of Lucy seem to indicate she was probably a 'knuckle-dragger'

The reconstructed pelvis does look compelling though, i must admit that.
But, since there is no evidence to support DNA codes itself to obtain positive development needed to get form Lucy to man, or from any 'hominid' to man, we can conclude Australopithecines simply went extinct.

However, i can see why people are convinced by such fossil interpretations.
Also because it is backed up by the large opinionmakers of the world.

I will stop calling Lucy a hoax though, because jumping to conclusions and making assumptions is not what a hoax is.

some reference:
http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Sci...archers-Lucy-is-not-direct-ancestor-of-humans

At least you admitted you were mistaken, I don't know why it took so much badgering.

This seems like a bit of a mealy mouthed retraction though, as if you are still trying to cast aspersions on the discovery.

1. What do you mean that Lucy is presented as factual and scientific? it's a set of fosillised bones, how should it be presented, it is what it is.

2. It is not purported to be a missing link, I expect that amidst the excitement of the discovery it may have been reported as such but after study by, you know, scientists there are no such claims and I challenge you to find a contemporary source that describes it as anything other than an early hominid species.

3. You said : "Australopithecines are a group of extinct apes closely related to modern chimpanzees and orangutans".

They exhibit both ape and modern human characteristics, you can see this for yourself. Besides modern humans are closely related to chimpanzees so I don't see your point.

4. Do you realize that there have been many hundreds of A. afarensis fossils found other than the Lucy skeleton, Including feet bones, your 'educated guess' comment is wrong.

5. You said: "But, since there is no evidence to support DNA codes itself to obtain positive development needed to get form Lucy to man, or from any 'hominid' to man, we can conclude Australopithecines simply went extinct."

No one said that Lucy 'developed' into modern man and we do conclude that A. afarensis went extinct. I think you've been taken in by misinformation on Creationist websites.

A quick google would have shown you that your objections are unfounded. It's sad that even after admitting that you were wrong you still have to make nonsensical little digs about "jumping to conclusions" and "assumptions" as the only person who has been doing that is you.

You might want to fact check the information presented in the videos you watch occasionally, don't let your mistrust of science lead you into error.

 

[Armoured]

I am good. But I WANT to be more intelligent.
Why shouldn't a jellyfish?

Because it doesn't need to be. They're perfectly adapted to their environment and ecological niche. Devoting their finite resources to unnecessary neural structures could only make them less fit.

Same reason cave fish don't "want" better vision.

 

[Chris B]

I am good. But I WANT to be more intelligent.
Why shouldn't a jellyfish?

Self-awareness and problem solving intelligence seems a rare trait and a pretty new and experimental* idea in the history of evolution. It's far too soon to tell if it's any good.
Possibilities: we are the first species with the potential to spread our genes beyond the one planet, which would be a definite evolutionary step, and we'd take other species with us.
On the other hand we may simply be too unstable to last any length of time.
Dinosaurs put in 650 million years... we've managed 2 million, being generous on what counts as the human start point.
With technology beyond chipping rocks and the associated skills, considerably less.
On longevity we've nothing at all to boast about, yet.

*Blind experiment. Nature, uncaring, doesn't bother about failures or the casualty rate. If evolution had awareness and planning behind it then it would look both wasteful and cruel.
Zombie snails, hijacked ladybirds and emasculated robot crabs.
And I'm glad tongue-eating parasites are confined to fish.

 

[juvenissun]

Because it doesn't need to be. They're perfectly adapted to their environment and ecological niche. Devoting their finite resources to unnecessary neural structures could only make them less fit.
Same reason cave fish don't "want" better vision.

You never know.
Fish did not have to come to land.
Evolution leads life toward a "better" situation. Believe or not.

 

[Hieronymus]

========n.m.========

 

[juvenissun]

Dinosaurs put in 650 million years... we've managed 2 million,

We may not last to the 3rd million years of time.
This is ALL because we are too intelligent.

 

[Armoured]

You never know.
Fish did not have to come to land.
Evolution leads life toward a "better" situation. Believe or not.

Define "better" ? Explain in what meaningful, objective way land creatures are "better" than fish?

And no. Evolution doesn't "lead" anywhere. The organisms best adapted to passing on their genes in a given environment tend to succeed in doing so more often than others. That's it. Any discussion of evolution that includes phrases like "lead" or "toward" have fundamentally misunderstood the theory.

 

[juvenissun]

Define "better" ? Explain in what meaningful, objective way land creatures are "better" than fish?

And no. Evolution doesn't "lead" anywhere. The organisms best adapted to passing on their genes in a given environment tend to succeed in doing so more often than others. That's it. Any discussion of evolution that includes phrases like "lead" or "toward" have fundamentally misunderstood the theory.

We are better than chimps.
You may deny it. But it is very very true.

 

[Armoured]

We may not last to the 3rd million years of time.
This is ALL because we are too intelligent.

Correct. Thus fairly clearly demonstrating that intelligence is not the supertrait you think it is. I understand the tendency, really I do, but surely you can agree that a trait that leads to a species causing it's one extinction after a million years or so, is not beneficial, especially when compared to, say, jellyfish, who are completely devoid of the trait, yet have been extant for ~580 million years, and quite successful in that time.

No one's saying we're not intelligent, just that intelligence is worthy of no special significance when considering the array of traits displayed by known organisms.

 

[Armoured]

We are better than chimps.
You may deny it. But it is very very true.

By whose reckoning? What makes us "better"? I'm not denying anything, by the way, I'm asking you to support your claim.

If its an opinion, that' fine. In my opinion, we're better than chimps, too. But so what? Truth isn't dictated by opinion.

 

[Larniavc]

Of course, science tried very hard to prove.

This is where I put you on ignore. All the time you've been here and you still don't understand.

 

[Armoured]

This is where I put you on ignore. All the time you've been here and you still don't understand.

I feel your frustration. Occasional flashes of insight and periodic glimpses of apparently well intentioned, non-strawman questions keep me hoping though.

 

[Herman Hedning]

We may not last to the 3rd million years of time.
This is ALL because we are too intelligent.

In that case, why do you want to become MORE intelligent?

 

[Chris B]

You never know.
Fish did not have to come to land.
Evolution leads life toward a "better" situation. Believe or not.

Evolution has wiped out more than 90% of all known species.
Evolution doesn't lead. It just lets survivors breed.

Environmental niches tend to get filled almost however inhospitable. The nice inviting niches get crowded, which either depletes resources or attracts lots of predators... one survival tactic is to go where they don't like to be.
I suspect the brackish water and mud of swamps provided that marginally better survival rate for fish who could adapt that little bit better than others.

Something similar has been a factor in many human migrations: losing tribes being pushed out to more marginal lands.

 

[Cearbhall]

Human is drastically different. It can not be evolved.

We're not that different from our immediate ancestors, and we're still evolving...

 

[Armoured]

In that case, why do you want to become MORE intelligent?

succinctly put.

 

[Chris B]

We may not last to the 3rd million years of time.
This is ALL because we are too intelligent.

I think we're odds against. Intelligence comes with costs and risks as well as potential.

Impacted wisdom teeth and painful and dangerous childbirth are things that I take not as divine curses, but due to negative side effects of a rapid (in evolutionary terms) increase in brain size which the rest of the skull has not fulled evolved compensation for. If the effect of intelligence outweighs the negative side effects, then the negative side effects wil be around for a while.

If my impacted wisdom teeth were deliberately designed in I might want words with someone.
Females may feel that they have a larger design issue to discuss, but the bible says that was deliberately inflicted.

 

[Armoured]

and we're still evolving...

.*wince* that's arguable. It's also extremely controversial as to whether phenotypical shift in humans can be said to result from NATURAL selection, at least in the developed West. But that's best left to another thread.